In every democratic system, there is a (usually) low key but continuous struggle for power between the three arms of government – the legislature, the executive and the judiciary.

In the United States, this is deliberately written into the US Constitution as a series of checks and balances between the different arms. This struggle has just been seen in the passage of the health care bill, and seems likely to continue now that some state Attorneys General are challenging the law in court, thus involving the third arm of government.

In Bermuda and in other countries that operate under the Westminster system, the checks and balances are less explicit. But they are there, although the executive arm of government tends to dominate. In Bermuda, the Premier is chosen from the legislature and then chooses his Cabinet from his party's legislators.

This, combined with the fact that political parties tend to be much more disciplined than they are in the US, means the executive often exercises much more power. For example, it is rare for the Government to be defeated on legislation.

That is not necessarily a bad thing. It tends to make Governments more decisive and able to effect change more quickly than can be the case in the US, where gridlock is often the norm, even when one party has a clear majority in the legislature. But it can be dangerous. The executive's freedom can lead to abuse, and Cabinet Ministers are often accountable only to the Premier, who holds their political futures in his or her hand. This can lead to a desire for secrecy, which is never healthy.

On that basis, changes agreed by MPs this week are welcome, and the House of Assembly deserves praise for making them. So too do Dame Jennifer Smith, the Deputy Speaker and chairwoman of the House Rules Committee, and Opposition MP John Barritt, who has been a leading proponent of Parliamentary reform. They drafted the changes and brought them to the floor of the House.

The changes are substantial and real, although some are only being done on a trial basis. Parliament has always had a question time, but it has often been "timed out" by the parish pump period for congratulations and condolences, meaning that the questions often are answered in writing later, with no opportunities for follow-ups. Now an hour will be set aside only for questions. This is a welcome change.

The second change concerns parliamentary committees which have now been given the option of opening up their meetings to the public. This does not go as far as many reformers would like; the preference would be for open meetings as a matter of course. But it is a start, and the moral pressure for committees to open their doors will be significant.

Why is this important? Because committees are one of the few places where backbenchers and Opposition MPs can hold Ministers and senior civil servants to account on behalf of the public. An example from overseas of how effective these committees can be is the Foreign Affairs Committee of the United Kingdom. It is highly unlikely that the recent inquiry into alleged corruption in the Turks and Caicos Islands would have taken place were it not for the findings of the FAC.

Finally, Parliament will at last get a Hansard, or a written record of its proceedings. This is critical. No longer will people have to rely on newspaper reports or radio broadcasts (which are not archived) to find out what and MP said and when he or she said it. Nor will legal scholars or historians have to ponder what spirit a piece of legislation was passed in.

It will all be there on the record. This is a change which is long overdue and all the more welcome for it. Many of the changes are being tested in the next parliamentary session; let's hope they are taken on permanently.